Use Your myFollowTheMoney Login

Or

Welcome to myFollowTheMoney, the customized e-mail alert community with deeper access to the unique and powerful data from the National Institute on Money in State Politics.

By creating a free myFollowTheMoney account, you’ll not only be able to download our data for your own exploration, you can also receive updates from us on the issues you care about. In addition, you’ll be signed up to receive our quarterly newsletter, packed with insider information on the hot topics facing money in state politics.

We will not share, rent, or sell your e-mail address with any other individual or organization.

This report examines how, or if, independent political spending changed in Florida since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Citizens United v. FEC in January 2010. Institute researchers discovered that the increasing use of independent spending in Florida allows both large donors and candidates to circumvent the state's contribution and public financing limits, but poor disclosure laws inhibit analysis of the impact this spending had on the outcome of elections.

The opinions and views in the report do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Institute's funders.

Independent Spending in Florida, 2006-2010

Overview

Between 2006 and 2010, $96.8 million of independent spending was reported in Florida, with just under half spent during the 2010 election. In each election, independent spending reached 25 to 30 percent of the amount contributed directly to candidates and ballot measure campaigns. While not showing much growth in relative terms, the total amount of independent spending grew substantially in absolute terms between 2006 ($31.5 million) and 2010 ($48.2 million). This increase, however, is not due to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United v. FEC decision, which did not affect Florida’s campaign finance laws.

Although the total independent political spending was less than a third of the money given directly to state campaigns, it is, nevertheless, playing an increasingly important role in Florida’s elections. The use of Electioneering Communication Organizations (ECOs)—or “527s” after their IRS designations—allow both large donors and candidates to circumvent Florida’s contribution and public financing limits.

A large donor can only give a candidate $500 per election, yet they are free to spend unlimited sums on electioneering communications, which are advertisements that seek to influence an election but fall short of explicitly endorsing or opposing a particular candidate or ballot measure. Candidates, particularly gubernatorial candidates, used ECOs to augment their fundraising operations and avoid the limits imposed by Florida’s public financing system.

Compounding the problem is that Florida’s disclosure of independent spending makes it difficult for the public to understand of who is funding or benefiting from the spending. Nearly 300 independent spending committees have been created since 2005, with innocuous names like “Let’s Get To Work,” “Florida’s Working Families,” and “Floridians for Truth and Integrity in Government,” with little or no identifying information. Yet many of these committees are registered to a small group of people. Of the $96.8 million of total independent spending during the study period, $38.8 million, 40 percent of the overall total, was routed through ECOs controlled by just four individuals.1

One of those individuals is Nancy Watkins, a particularly good example of how multiple independent spending committees are employed by a small number of political professionals. Watkins’ accounting firm, Robert Watkins and Co., is located at 610 South Boulevard, Tampa, Florida, which is also the official address of 88 different political committees—of which 24 are independent spending committees, 33 are registered with the Federal Elections Commission (FEC), and dozens more are 527 organizations registered with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). These committees spent millions of dollars in Florida and across the country.23 All of these committees are registered either to Nancy Watkins, or her husband and business partner, Robert Watkins.45

Several of the committees registered with the Watkins firm are the Florida affiliates of nationwide political organizations. For example:

Nancy Watkins is the chair, treasurer, and registered agent of the Florida arm of the Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC), a national 527 organization that supports Republican candidates at the state level, now run by former Bush Administration advisors Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie. The national organization spent an additional $1.25 million in Florida in 2010.

Ms. Watkins also serves as the treasurer and registered agent of the League of Florida Voters ECO. The group’s only contributor was the League of American Voters (LAV), which gave the League of Florida Voters $435,000 in 2010.6 LAV has the same Washington, D.C. address as Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform, one of the preeminent Republican political organizations in the country.

This report, and our independent spending database, provides the first analysis of how independent spending augments direct political contributions in Florida. The report discusses the state of independent spending disclosure in Florida and, to the greatest extent possible, identifies the politicians and funders who are the most reliant on independent spending. Because Florida’s data lacks several key pieces of crucial information, most notably which candidates are targeted by independent spenders, this report provides a general analysis of the spending.

Methodology

The National Institute on Money in State Politics collected independent expenditure reports filed by individuals and committees with state disclosure agencies in states that provide robust disclosure. These states define “independent expenditure” and “electioneering communication” in statute at least as thoroughly as the federal definition.

The Institute used the information provided on disclosure reports to assign an occupation code to the filers. When that information was not provided, staff conducted additional research to determine a filer’s economic interest, where possible. The occupation codes are based on theStandard Industrial Classification system used by the federal government.

If an expenditure listed multiple targets, and the amount paid did not specify how much was attributable to each target, the target amount was left blank. Therefore, the total spent on each target may be under-reported.

The Institute does not equate money spent in opposition to one candidate with money spent in support of that candidate’s opponent and instead discusses the money spent on each race. Only expenditures made for the purpose of influencing state elections were reported.

The state of Florida requires an Electioneering Communication Organization (ECOs) to formally recognize a link to an outside entity only when a candidate either receives a contribution from or raises money for an ECO. In this case, a candidate has to file a Statement of Solicitation. In all other cases, media reports and each committee’s contribution records were used to establish what underlying entities were affiliated with a particular ECO.

Florida also does not require independent spenders to disclose the target of their spending, making it possible only in rare cases—through review of media, websites, and other information sources—to identify what candidates or ballot issues the independent expenditures were either supporting or opposing. When news reports indicated that certain entities were spending on only local or county elections, we removed them from our analysis.

Finally, the Institute collected the reports of Electioneering Communication Organizations (ECO) and Independent Expenditure Organizations (IXOs) in Florida. Political committees (PCs) can also make both types of spending, but their independent spending, which totaled just $1.7 million between 2006 and 2010, is not included.

State of Disclosure in Florida

Effective campaign finance disclosure is comprised of three mutually reinforcing elements: clear statutes, comprehensive data collection, and effective presentation of the data. Excellent data that cannot be easily accessed or clearly presented stymies the public’s right to know just as effectively as incomplete data. Florida collects large amounts of data, but the data itself often lacks key elements and is presented in ways that make it difficult to connect independent spending to specific candidates and their underlying funders.

Statutory Definitions

In Florida, Chapter 106 of Florida Statute dictates the terms of campaign finance and disclosure. For independent spending, Florida has adopted the two federal categories of independent spending: independent expenditures (IE) and electioneering communications (EC).

Florida defines an independent expenditure as:

“an expenditure by a person for the purpose of expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate or the approval or rejection of an issue, which expenditure is not controlled by, coordinated with, or made upon consultation with, any candidate, political committee, or agent of such candidate or committee. An expenditure for such purpose by a person having a contract with the candidate, political committee, or agent of such candidate or committee in a given election period shall not be deemed an independent expenditure.” 7 (emphasis added)

Express advocacy is a type of independent political speech, wherein an advertisement or communication explicitly tells an audience to vote either for or against a clearly identified candidate or issue. Florida has adopted the United States Supreme Court’s definition of express advocacy as defined by Buckley v. Valeo. In it, the Court identified the specific phrases—the so-called “magic words”—that automatically qualify a political communication as express advocacy. They are: “vote for,” “elect,” “support,” “cast your ballot for,” “Smith for Congress,” “vote against,” “defeat,” and “reject.”

Any type of political advertisements that do not use these stated words, yet are intended to influence an election, are defined as electioneering communications. Florida statute defines them as any:

“communication that is publicly distributed by a television station, radio station, cable television system, satellite system, newspaper, magazine, direct mail, or telephone that:

1. Refers to or depicts a clearly identified candidate for office without expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate but that is susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate;

2. Is made within 30 days before a primary or special primary election or 60 days before any other election for the office sought by the candidate; and

3. Is targeted to the relevant electorate in the geographic area the candidate would represent if elected.”8(emphasis added)

Unlike the independent expenditure statutes, however, there is no prohibition against politicians and their campaigns from cooperating with electioneering communication organizations. Without this explicit statutory separation, ECOs can, and often do, function as de facto arms of a candidate’s campaign.

Condition of the Data

The most glaring omission in Florida’s data is the lack of target information.9 Without knowing the target of each expenditure, it is impossible to assemble a clear or complete picture of how independent spending is influencing specific campaigns or races—making any analysis of the state’s data incomplete at best.

Independent spenders in Florida have to disclose their political committee’s name, address, and phone number; the names and addresses of their chair, treasurer, and registered agent; and the committee’s purpose and affiliates. For each expenditure, spenders must disclose the date, amount, payee; the payee’s address, city, state, and zip code; and the expenditure’s purpose and type.10

Data Presentation and Access

All independent spending is disclosed on the DS-DE-14 form, and every independent spender is subject to the same reporting schedule. In non-election years, the reports are filed quarterly. During an election year, reports must be filed on the 32nd, 18th, and 4th days immediately preceding the primary election and on the 46th, 32nd, 18th, and 4th days immediately preceding the general election, in addition to the quarterly reports.11

Florida uses an entity-wide rather than an event-based disclosure system, meaning that all political entities report their contributions and expenditures on a uniform schedule. The major advantage of this system is that, in theory, it allows the public to track every dollar in and out of each committee over time. This theoretical advantage is largely negated in practice, as it is not always easy to identify how an independent spending committee in Florida is tied to a particular funder or candidate.

For example, nothing on the committee page for the Let’s Get To Work ECO, which spent $17.5 million in 2010, would indicate that it belonged to gubernatorial candidate Rick Scott. To make that connection, a person would have to find the PDF file of Scott’s Statement of Solicitation. In the case of ECOs not affiliated with a candidate, the underlying funder does not have to certify its connection to a particular ECO. Absent a Statement of Solicitation, making connections between ECOs and their funders involves examining each committee’s contribution records.

This can often be a complicated process. A funder will often separate their independent spending into multiple committees. When each independent spending committee is treated as an autonomous entity and not the extension of its funders, a shell game can develop. For example, US Sugar and subsidiaries of Fanjul Corp. spent $4.4 million from 2006 through 2010 through two innocuously named ECOs: Coalition For Justice and Equality and Florida’s Working Families. Although the two companies bankrolled each committee, they are registered to different addresses and have separate lobbyists as their “registered agents.” Without examining their contributions records, it would not be apparent that these committees were spending on behalf of the same corporations.

Finally, a single lobbyist will often serve as the registered agent for multiple political entities.

As mentioned earlier, 610 South Boulevard, Tampa, Florida is the listed home of dozens of political committees registered to Nancy Watkins. Many of these committees are operated by some of the most powerful political players in the state and the country. Large corporations, influential state politicians, and national advocacy organizations rely on committees registered to 610 South Boulevard; however those connections are not easily visible on the Division of Elections’ website.

In spite of the data’s shortcomings, and the tangled web of independent spending committees, Florida’s Division of Elections is to be commended for collecting and storing all of this electronically.

Political Entities

Understanding independent spending in Florida requires comprehending the array of different political entities that raise and spend money to influence state elections in Florida. Each type of political committee operates under different fundraising and spending limits, as well as restrictions on the types of political speech they can engage in.

All political entities in Florida are categorized as one of the following:

Candidate

Political Committee (PC)

Committee of Continuous Existence (CCE)

Party Executive Committee (PTY)

Electioneering Communication Organization (ECO)

Independent Expenditures Organization (IXO)

Any “combination of two or more individuals, or a person that spends or receives more than $500 during a calendar year to support or oppose any candidate, issue, political committee or political party” must register as a political committee (PC).12 Florida statute, however, exempts the following groups from the definition of a political committee: committees of continuous existence (CCE), national and state political parties, for-profit and nonprofit corporations, and electioneering communication organizations (ECO). Independent Expenditure Organizations, however, are still considered a political committee. Each type of committee has a slightly different purpose, as defined by law.

TABLE 2: Type of Political Organizations

Political Committee (PC)

Committee of Continuous Existence (CCE)

Electioneering Communication Organization (ECO)

Independent Expenditure Organization (IXO)

Party Executive Committees (PTY)

Is a combination of two or more individuals, or a person that spends or receives more than $500 during a calendar year to support or oppose any candidate, issue, political committee, committee of continuous existence or political partyF.S. 106.011(1)(a)(1)(a)

…[Is] a group, organization, association, or other such entity which is involved in making contributions to candidates, political committees, or political partiesF.S. 106.011(3)(2)

To make expenditures for electioneering communications or accepting contributions for the purpose of making electioneering communications and such activities would not otherwise require the organization to register... F.S. 106.011(19).

Each person who makes an independent expenditure…which, in the aggregate, is in the amount of $5,000 or more, shall file reports of such expenditures in the same manner, at the same time, and are subject to the same penalties as a political committee supporting such candidate or issue. F.S. 106.071

To raise and expend party funds. Such funds may not be expended or committed to be expended except after written authorization by the chair of the state or county executive committee. F.S. 103.121(1)(a)

Each type of political entity has different restrictions on the amount of money they can raise, the amount they can give to other political entities, and the type of expenditures they can fund. The following tables explain these restrictions for the types of political entities.

TABLE 3: Limits on Contributions to Political Organizations

Political Committee (PC)

Committee of Continuous Existence (CCE)

Electioneering Communication Organization (ECO)

Independent Expenditure Organization (IXO)

Supporting or opposing issues only—no limit.Supporting or opposing one or more candidates—$500 per election.Supporting or opposing both candidates and issues—$500 per election.

As long as 25% of a CCE’s income comes from member dues, they have no limits on their contributions to other political entities.

To candidates—$500 per election.To support or oppose issues—no limit.To a political party—no limit.Can make independent expenditures and electioneering communications.

To candidate or PC supporting a candidate—$500 per election.To ECO or political party—no limit.To a PC supporting issues—cannot exceed 25% of its previous year’sincome.May not make independent expenditures or electioneering communications.

No numeric limits, but can only make electioneering communications.

Can only make independent expenditures.Cannot make contributions to candidates, political committees, committees of continuous existence, or party committees.

PCs face the least restrictions on speech, as they can make IEs, ECs, and direct contributions, but have lower contribution and expenditure limits. CCEs cannot make IEs or ECs, but may contribute to either ECOs or PCs, while ECOs—as their name suggests—can only fund electioneering communications. These restrictions further complicate the path that money takes through Florida’s campaign finance system, because if a single underlying entity makes several types of expenditures in excess of $500, it will need to form multiple committees to do so.

One organization that uses this practice is the Florida Retail Federation. One of the largest business lobby groups in the state, it operates 10 separate CCEs and one ECO. Combined, the 11 organizations spent $2.7 million since 2005. The 10 CCEs accounted for $1.8 million, while the Federation’s Florida Mainstreet Merchants ECO spent $1.7 million. On the Federation’s website, they explicitly note the respective contribution and expenditure limitations of CCEs and ECOs.

Overall, the data confirms that large expenditures are following the path of least resistance and shunning the committees that impose contribution and expenditure limits. Of the $96.8 million of independent political spending, only $1.7 million, or 2 percent of all independent spending, was reported as independent expenditures.

Top Independent Spenders in Florida, 2006–2010

The top spenders in Florida were all electioneering communication organizations (ECO). These committees were affiliated with candidates running for office or other organizations. Many times these underlying entities spent via multiple ECOs.

ECOs With Ties to Florida Candidates

Florida politicians made $36.7 million worth of expenditures through affiliated ECOs from 2006 through 2010, with $29.5 million of that total spent during the 2010 election. Below are candidates who raised and spent the most via ECOs.

TABLE 5: Top Spending ECOs Affiliated with Candidates, 2006–2010

ECO

Candidate (Office)

Election

Independent Spending

Let’s Get to Work

Scott, Rick (Governor)

2010

$17,453,125

Florida First Initiative, Sunshine State Freedom Fund

McCollum, Bill (Governor)

2010

$6,059,930

Freedom First Committee

Haridopolos, Mike (Senate)

2010, 2008

$3,959,885

Floridians for Truth and Integrity in Politics

Crist, Charlie (Governor)

2006

$2,845,902

Coalition to Protect the American Dream

Gallagher, Tom (Governor)

2006

$1,553,204

Total

$31,872,046

The 2010 gubernatorial race set new records for every category of fundraising, and ECOs were no exception. ECOs tied to Republican primary opponents Rick Scott and Bill McCollum spent $23.5 million, $18.5 million of which was spent on or before the Republican primary.

Rick Scott’s Let’s Get to Work ECO spent $17.5 million in 2010, making it the largest independent spender from 2006 through 2010. Its spending alone was more than all ECOs in 2008 combined. Scott’s wife, Annette, was Let’s Get to Work’s largest contributor, giving it more than $12.8 million, or nearly three-fourths of the ECO’s total contributions.16 Her contributions are in addition to the $60.4 million that Scott himself directly contributed to his own campaign.

Despite self-financing the majority of his campaign, Scott’s use of the Let’s Get to Work ECO let him avoid the spending caps of Florida’s public financing system. For every dollar Scott spent above $24.9 million, his primary opponent Bill McCollum would have received a dollar-for-dollar match. Funds spent by an ECO, however, do not count toward the spending cap.1718

McCollum used two ECOs of his own: the Florida First Initiative and Sunshine State Freedom Fund.19 While McCollum filed statements of solicitation for both the Freedom First Initiative and the Sunshine State Freedom Fund, there were additional ECOs that ran anti-Scott advertisements but were not officially connected to the McCollum campaign. Among them were the Committee for Responsible Representation, which spent $651,001, and Citizens Speaking Out, which spent $316,444 in 2010.

Senate President Mike Haridopolos’ Freedom First Committee was the next-largest spending ECO.20 The Freedom First Committee amassed the most money of any non-gubernatorial candidate’s ECO. The ECO’s largest contributor in 2010 was the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which gave the committee over half a million dollars.

In an interesting connection to the 2010 governor’s race, Sen. Mike Haridopolos’ Freedom First Committee contributed $1.8 million to Citizens Speaking Out, the Committee for Responsible Representation, and the Florida First Initiative ECOs, which were linked to spending against Scott.21

Charlie Crist was linked to two separate ECOs during his run for governor in 2006.22 Floridians for Truth and Integrity in Government spent $2.8 million, while Floridians for a Better and Brighter Future did not have to file with the Florida Division of Elections.23 IRS records, however, show that it spent $1.4 million.24 Media reports linked both groups to spending against Tom Gallagher, Crist’s Republican primary opponent.

Gallagher also employed an ECO in the 2006 primary. His Coalition to Protect the American Dream spent $1.6 million, but did not save his bid for the Republican nomination, his third unsuccessful attempt.25

Several other ECOs have been tied to Florida legislators from 2006 through 2010. The largest of these spenders were:

Florida Mainstream Democrats and Florida Mainstream Democratic Alliance spent a combined total of $1.2 million. Both groups were formed by a large number of Democratic politicians to help support centrist Democratic candidates.

Committee to Protect Florida spent $785,304 is connected to Republican officeholders. Jeff Kottkamp, a former house member and current lieutenant governor, and Sen. Mike Fasano both signed Statements of Solicitation with the committee.

ECOs Not Affiliated with Candidates

Several ECOs that were not formally connected to particular candidates spent significant sums of money across the 2006, 2008, and 2010 elections. The top spenders were ECOs affiliated with the Florida Chamber of Commerce, the American Federation for Children/All Children Matter, US Sugar, and Fanjul Corporation.

All Children Matter, All Children Matter–Florida, Committee for Florida’s Education, Florida Committee for Educational Freedom, Florida Federation for Children

American Federation for Children

$2,733,785

$2,374,589

$1,151,669

$6,260,043

Coalition for Justice and Equality, Florida’s Working Families

US Sugar/Fanjul Corp.

$4,210,218

$300,354

$155,958

$4,666,530

Total

$17,374,145

The Florida Chamber of Commerce led this group of ECOs, but because the chamber is a 501(c)6 trade association, it is not required to publicly disclose its own sources of funding to the public. The Chamber split its $5.9 million of independent spending via three ECOs: the Florida Chamber Alliance, Partnership for Florida’s Future, and the Florida Justice Reform Group.

American Federation for Children (AFC) closely trailed the Florida Chamber. Using five different ECOs, AFC spent $6.3 million. A nationwide school voucher and charter school advocacy reform organization, the AFC and its predecessor All Children Matter, are led by Michigan billionaires Betsy and Dick DeVos. Betsy, Dick, and their mother, Helen, contributed a combined $550,000 to the All Children Matter ECO. Members of the Walton family, owners of Wal-Mart, have contributed $7.2 million to the All Children Matter ECO.26

The DeVos family has also made significant campaign contributions in Florida, giving $682,750 over the last three cycles, with two-thirds of that given to the Republican Party of Florida. John Kirtley, AFC’s national Vice-Chair, and his wife, Kimberly, spread an additional $106,200 among 70 candidates and both major parties.

Several reports have speculated that out-of-state education reform money targeting Democratic lawmakers has paid policy dividends. The ECOs and campaign contributions affiliated with AFC and other school voucher advocates has been credited for garnering Democratic support for voucher programs that are typically anathema to them.2728

Behind the AFC was US Sugar and Florida Crystals, a subsidiary of the Fanjul Corporation, which together have spent $4.7 million since 2006. US Sugar, a privately held company based in Clewiston, Florida, is one of the state’s largest producers of citrus and sugar.29 Fanjul Corp, is one of the other largest citrus and sugar producers in Florida.

How The Money Was Spent

Independent spenders also have to disclose whom they paid and what they purchased. The majority of independent spending bought radio and television time or direct mail advertisements. Consequently, the largest payees of these expenditures are media and political consulting firms.

TABLE 7: Types of Independent Spending, 2006–2010

Category

2006

2008

2010

Total

TV and Radio Advertising

$12,184,027

$2,503,803

$17,044,619

$31,732,449

Direct Mail

$6,013,594

$5,145,887

$9,024,392

$20,183,872

Contributions to Other Spenders

$7,011,710

$4,025,493

$7,190,486

$18,227,689

Get-Out-the-Vote Activities

$1,144,179

$456,446

$7,169,358

8,769,984

Total

$26,353,510

$12,131,629

$40,428,855

$78,913,994

TABLE 8: Largest Payees of Independent Spending in Florida, 2006–2010

Firm

Total

Multimedia Services

$10,992,188

McLaughlin & Associates

$8,053,089

Majority Strategies

$6,192,094

The Victory Group

$2,626,692

All Children Matter-Florida

$2,441,000

Public Concepts

$2,075,006

Total

$32,380,069

Multimedia Services, based in Alexandria, Virginia, produces political advertisements for candidates and clients nationwide. Rick Scott’s Let’s Get Work ECO paid them $10.6 million.

McLaughlin & Associates is a nationwide polling and research firm that works with a variety of politicians, candidates, and corporations. Its largest Florida client was Bill McCollum’s Florida First Initiative ECO, which paid the firm $5.6 million.30

Majority Strategies is a nationwide direct mail firm, based in Florida. Major Strategies’ largest client was Rick Scott’s Let’s Get to Work ECO, which gave the firm nearly $5.5 million.31

The Victory Group is a media firm based in Tampa, Florida, that manages political communications for politicians and campaigns across the country. At $1.9 million, the Florida Chamber of Commerce was its largest Florida client.

All Children Matter-Florida was the only top payee that was not a public relations firm. All of its $2.4 million of contributions came from All Children Matter, its parent organization.

Public Concepts is a political consultancy firm based in West Palm Beach, Florida. Its largest Florida client was Floridians for Conservative Values, an ECO that funneled expenditures from a variety of corporate contributors, including US Sugar, Fanjul Corp and other political committees.

All Children Matter, All Children Matter-Florida, Florida Federation for Children, Committee For Florida’s Education

American Federation for Children

$1,151,669

Total

$32,516,596

Sen. Mike Haridopolos’ Freedom First Committee spent $3.6 million, making it the third-largest independent spender. Senator Haridopolos represents Senate District 26 and was sworn in as the state senate president following last fall’s election.32

A majority of the Freedom First Committee’s expenditures were not electioneering communications, but contributions to other ECOs. The Freedom First Committee gave $1.8 million to Citizens Speaking Out, Committee for Responsible Representation, and the Florida First Initiative, all of which were linked to spending against Rick Scott during the Republican primary.33 It is possible that this influx of ECO money was used to offset Scott’s significant fundraising advantage.

The Florida Chamber of Commerce was the next largest spender, giving $3 million through three ECOs: the Florida Chamber of Commerce Alliance, Partnership for Florida’s Future, and the Florida Justice Reform Group. The Chamber’s spent $1.9 million of this total on television and radio advertisements.

The Chamber was followed by the Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC), the fifth-largest spender. This nationwide Republican 527 group, now affiliated with Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie, spent $1.3 million on electioneering communications.34 This amount dwarfs the $50,000 the RSLC contributed to the Protect Your Vote ballot measure committee, the only other money it spent in Florida.35

The American Federation for Children spent slightly less than the RSLC. The group spent $856,744 on direct mail advertisements and just over $200,000 on radio advertisements.

Combined, these ECOs accounted for 69 percent of independent spending during the 2010 election.

2008 Elections in Florida

The 2008 election lacked a gubernatorial race, and saw only $16.5 million of independent spending, a significantly lower amount than either the 2010 or the 2006 elections. When viewed as a percentage of direct campaign contributions, however, independent spending in 2008 equaled just over 29 percent compared to the total given to candidates and ballot measures—higher than either 2006 or 2010.

TABLE 10: Top Independent Spenders in Florida, 2008

Spender

Affiliated With

Total

All Children Matter, All Children Matter-Florida, Florida Committee for Educational Freedom

American Federation for Children

$ 2,374,589

People for A Better Florida Fund

Florida Medical Association

$1,343,289

Citizens for a Better Florida, Coalition for Better Communities, Council for Stronger Neighborhoods

Florida Association of Realtors

$ 1,197,736

Total

$4,915,614

The American Federation of Children was the largest source of independent spending in 2008.36 It spent $2.4 million through three ECOs: All Children Matter, All Children Matter-Florida, and the Florida Committee for Educational Freedom.

The second-largest spender in 2008 was People For a Better Florida Fund, a group with close ties to the Florida Medical Association. A lawsuit filed after the 2008 election revealed that the ECO was closely cooperating with Sen. Eleanor Sobel, who successfully won a state senate seat. 37

Florida Association of Realtors spent $1.2 million through three ECOs: Citizens for a Better Florida, Coalition for Better Communities, and the Council for Stronger Neighborhoods. Nearly half of that amount ($574,916) was spent on direct mail advertising. This is in addition to the $2.6 million they gave to candidates, party committees, and ballot measures in 2008.

2006 Elections in Florida

The $31.4 million in 2006 independent spending was one-fourth the $113.5 million in direct campaign contributions. The 2006 elections, like 2010, featured a contentious race for an open governor’s seat that involved several ECOs.

TABLE 11: Top Independent Spenders in Florida, 2006

Spenders

Affiliated With

Total

Coalition for Justice and Equality, Florida’s Working Families

US Sugar, Fanjul Corp.

$4,210,218

Floridians for Truth and Integrity in Government

Charlie Crist

$2,831,959

All Children Matter, All Children Matter-Florida, Florida Committee for Education Freedom

American Federation for Children/All Children Matter

$2,733,785

Partnership for Florida’s Future, Justice Reform Group

Florida Chamber of Commerce

$2,407,439

Coalition to Protect the American Dream

Tom Gallagher

$1,553,203

Total

$13,736,604

The Florida sugar and citrus industry was responsible for funding most of the independent spending during the 2006 election, with two firms–US Sugar and the Fanjul Corporation—contributing $1.1 million to the Coalition for Justice and Equality and $2.4 million to Florida’s Working Families, which together spent $4.2 million.

These two ECOs, however, were just a fraction of the sugar industry’s involvement in the 2006 elections. Investigative reporting discovered other ECOs, including one with close ties to former Governor Charlie Crist, received significant contributions from sugar interests. Floridians for Truth and Integrity in Government ECO, which came to be identified as a pro-Crist ECO, received $500,000 from five major sugar producers: US Sugar ($150,000), Flo-Sun ($100,000), Florida Crystals ($100,000), Southern Garden Citrus ($100,000), and America’s Export ($50,000).38 Floridians for Truth and Integrity in Government was itself the second-largest independent spender in 2006. At the time, Crist was Florida’s incumbent attorney general running for an open governor’s office.39

The sugar industry, and US Sugar and Fanjul Corp. in particular, had taken interest in the governor’s race due to an impending deal with the state of Florida over restoring the ecological health of the Everglades. Both firms own land crucial to the restoration efforts. Following the 2009 elections, the state of Florida bought 72,800 acres of land from US Sugar for $536 million.40 A review of internal documents by The New York Times found that Gov. Crist’s office used inflated appraisals that overstated the value of US Sugar’s land by $400 million.41

The custodian listed on Floridians for Truth and Integrity in Government ECO’s IRS forms was Eric Buermann, who Gov. Crist later appointed to the governing board of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD),42 the state agency that oversaw and financed the deal. After legal challenges by both Fanjul Corp and the Miccosukee Tribe, the land deal was further reduced in size to $197 million for 26,800 acres.43

Prior to the general election, Crist faced longtime Republican politician Tom Gallagher, who was mounting his third gubernatorial run, in the Republican primary.44 In a foreshadowing of the 2010 primary between Rick Scott and Bill McCollum, Crist and Gallagher began relying on ECOs to augment their direct contributions.

Crist’s Floridians for Truth and Integrity in Government spent the majority of its funds—$1.7 million—on radio and television advertising, and contributed $1.1 million to the Florida Republican Party.

Gallagher’s Coalition to Protect the American Dream spent an additional $1.6 million above the $10.1 million that Gallagher raised in campaign contributions.45 Two-thirds of the group’s spending went to television and radio advertisements.

The amount raised by these ECOs pales in comparison to the $34.3 million that Crist and Gallagher raised in direct campaign contributions. Christ handily defeated Gallagher, and went on to beat Jim Davis in the general election.

Outside of the governor’s race and the sugar industry, All Children Matter spent $2.7 million, $1.3 million of which were contributions among its own ECOs. It also spent $687,256 on media production and air time, as well as $671,997 on direct mail advertising.

The Florida Chamber of Commerce’s Partnership for Florida’s Future ECO spent $2 million, $1.4 million of which was spent on television and radio advertising, while $675,000 was contributed to three other ECOs: Citizens for Conservative Values, Teachers for Better Schools, and the Committee to Restore Integrity in Politics.

Conclusion

Florida’s disclosure of independent spending is subpar. The current system makes determining the true identity of the largest independent spenders difficult and time consuming, limiting analysis of the impact that spending had on the outcomes of Florida’s elections. The underlying irony is that large amounts of money flow through ECOs in part because of Florida’s low contribution limits and spending caps of the state’s public financing system—both of which were put in place with the intent to limit the influence of money over public officials.46 Loopholes in the state’s campaign finance laws are giving Florida’s citizens the worst of all possible worlds. Rather than limiting the influence of large campaign donors, Florida’s laws simply drive them, in effect, underground. Donors are still able to exert their influence, but in ways that are more difficult to identify.

Independent spending rose from $31.5 million in 2006 to $48.2 million in 2010, an increase of nearly 53 percent. This type of increase indicates that electioneering communication organizations are no longer an obscure type of political committee, but becoming a major feature of gubernatorial campaigns, as well as being used by both Republican and Democratic legislative leaders in the state house and senate.

The seemingly prosaic names of ECOs—Florida’s Working Families, Coalition to Protect the American Dream, People for a Better Florida—obscure the corporations and, in many cases, the politicians who actually control them. This confusion is further underscored by the nature of electioneering communications themselves, which, because they cannot simply say vote for or against particular candidates, tend to engage in vague, negative, and in some cases, false, attacks.47

Florida is typically one of the largest and most important electoral battlegrounds in the nation, but it lacks a comprehensive campaign finance disclosure system. Absent one, the public’s ability to understand their government will invariably suffer. Its elections will continue to be influenced by a shadowy network of ECOs that obscure the connections between wealthy campaign donors and the public’s elected representatives.

1. They are: John French, an election lawyer and lobbyist; Stafford (William) Jones, a principal of the lobbying firm War Room Logistics; Mark Wilson, the president and CEO of the Florida Chamber of Commerce; and Nancy Watkins, a CPA and treasurer of dozens of Republican campaigns and political committees.

9. In rare cases, a candidate’s name and a pro/con position will be disclosed under “Purpose.” The majority of the time, however, “Purpose” lists what the expenditure purchased, e.g. “mailers,” “television ad,” “rent,” etc., and not whom the expenditure was spent for or against.

10. “Expenditure type” discloses what kind of independent spending was purchased with each expenditure, or whether it was cash to the payee.

23. It did not have to file because the law requiring the registration of electioneering communication organizations did not go into effect until July 1, 2006. Floridians for a Better and Brighter Future’s last report to the IRS ended on June 30, 2006.

46. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the matching funds component of Florida’s public finance system in a June 2011 decision, prohibiting them from taking effect during the 2010 elections.

This Report in the News

In 2008, $4 billion was spent on political campaigns in the United States. In 2010, about $3 billion was spent even though it was a lower-profile non-presidential election. Money matters. That's why politicians spend their political lives raising it, and then spending it on things such as commercials, transportation, staff, literature and everyone’s new favorite, the ubiquitous robo-calls. Considering those statistics, this report about Florida political financing, released on FollowTheMoney.org on Wednesday, should have Floridians reaching for the political Tums. “Although the total independent political spending was less than a third of the money given directly to state campaigns, it is, nevertheless, playing an increasingly important role in Florida's elections,” the report read. Read the full article HERE.

Orlando Sentinel 11/19/2011In Florida politics, it's hard to tell who gave cash, who got it

Florida's flood of unregulated political spending by independent groups is vast, expanding and characterized by anonymous attacks, bogus or inflated allegations and often-untraceable cash. Call it the dark matter of Florida's campaign-finance universe. The Montana-based nonpartisan National Institute of Money in State Politics took a crack at illuminating this nebulous world of independent expenditures last week. The institute came to much the same conclusion as most of us who track money in state politics. "Compounding the problem is that Florida's disclosure of independent spending makes it difficult for the public to understand who is funding or benefiting from the spending," the report notes. Read the full article HERE.

“National School Choice Week” launched its nationwide activities in New Orleans over the weekend with the participation of celebrities and elected officials and a proclamation of support by at least 25 state governors, including Rick Scott. Event organizers wrote that ”supporters of National School Choice Week believe that parents must be empowered to select the best schools for their children, and that elected officials must do more to expand access to great public schools, public charter schools, private schools, virtual schools, and homeschooling.” School Choice Week, which touts its bipartisan credentials as well as free market competition, has very powerful political and economic conservative supporters.The American Federation for Children is “affiliated with the American Federation for Children PAC, a political committee that supports and opposes state-level candidates for elected office,” and works “to promote the benefits of—and the need for—school choice.” A November 2011 report published by the National Institute on Money in State Politics shows that American Federation for Children spent $6.3 million on the 2006, 2008 and 2010 Florida elections. Read the full article HERE.

Did You Know?

Planned Parenthood affiliates led the opposition to abortion restrictions on the 2008 ballot, giving $8.2 million.